After three consecutive 4-2 votes, and much discussion, Westlock County councillors passed the county’s new Fire Protection Bylaw, which includes restrictions on the burning of peat.
The final votes to pass the bylaw took place at the county’s regular council meeting on April 23.
However, neither those for or against burning were happy with the result.
“Of course the people there for the burning were not happy that the guidelines are as strict as they are,” said county reeve Charles Navratil. “And of course the people against the burning were unhappy we even passed (the bylaw) at all.”
First reading of the bylaw took place on April 17, and the second and third readings followed a public hearing on April 23.
At the public hearing, more than a dozen county residents — both for and against burning peat — were in the council chambers to make sure councillors were aware of what they thought of the bylaw.
Richard Krikke with the Westlock Right to Farm and Improve Land Association said he felt the bylaw’s peat conditions were not acceptable, and that not enough time had been given to allow the association and other landowners time to review it.
Coun. Bert Seatter agreed with Krikke, and moved to delay third reading of the bylaw for four weeks to allow the association more time to review the bylaw. That motion was defeated 5-1.
Wayne Forbes, also with the right-to-farm group, expressed disappointment in the bylaw, asking what happened to the suggestions the group gave to the county, as many of them either disappeared or were greatly altered in the final bylaw.
Navratil said he felt the only changes the county made to the groups suggestions were to the size of the peat piles and the distances from the piles to buildings, roads and other piles. Otherwise, the suggestions were incorporated into the bylaw.
Coun. Ron Zadunayski said councillors did their best to ensure the bylaw represented a compromise between those for and against burning.
However, considering the province has said the county cannot legally ban burning outright, the bylaw was “about as close as we can come” to a solution both sides could agree on.
The two dissenting voices on council — Seatter and Coun. Mike Cook — both explained why they disagreed with the bylaw.
Seatter said, for him, the economics of burning don’t make sense.
In addition, he said burning is a big health issue, with the chemicals in the smoke affecting breathing, and the smoke being a visibility hazard on the roads.
He added he would prefer the county ban peat burning and take its chance in court when the ban was challenged.
Resident Dennis Primeau challenged Seatter’s assertions about the health concerns, arguing in his more than 50 years the smoke has never been a problem to the degree the county has been arguing.
Cook said he also is opposed to burning because of the health concerns. He added he lives in Division 6 where smoke has been a problem and has seen many stop-work orders issued for problem burns.
Following passing second reading, Zadunayski said it would be a good idea to pass the bylaw in its current form, as a baseline, and evaluate how well it’s working, acknowledging it could be reviewed and amended in the future.
Krikke said he was disappointed it had taken the county more than six months to get to the point of finally passing the bylaw, and agreed it was probably best to pass it now and reevaluate how it’s working in the future.
Navratil acknowledged that fact, and said he wouldn’t be surprised to see the issue come up in the fall election.
“There may be candidates running for strictly no burning, period,” he said.
“There may be candidates for allowing burning with restrictions and there may be candidates running who’ll say burn with no restrictions, as they always did.”
